Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase.
Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will still not be high. They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.
Raoul responds to Sonya's argument by doing which of the following?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. |
|
| Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. |
|
| Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase. |
|
| True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will still not be high. |
|
| They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland. |
|
Argument Flow:
Sonya builds a straightforward economic argument: tax increase → prices still affordable → demand stays steady → more revenue. Raoul agrees with her demand analysis but introduces smuggling as a complicating factor that could reduce legal sales and hurt revenue.
Main Conclusion:
Sonya concludes government revenue will increase from the cigarette tax. Raoul doesn't directly state a conclusion but suggests this revenue increase might not happen due to smuggling.
Logical Structure:
Sonya uses a simple cause-and-effect chain where modest price increases don't reduce demand, leading to higher revenue. Raoul accepts her reasoning but points out she missed how relative prices (compared to neighboring regions) could create smuggling that reduces the legal sales her revenue calculation depends on.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Misc - This is asking us to identify what method Raoul uses to respond to Sonya's argument. We need to analyze how Raoul structures his response and what argumentative technique he employs.
Precision of Claims
Sonya makes specific claims about consumption levels (won't be affected much) and revenue (will increase). Raoul accepts the consumption claim but introduces a new factor (smuggling) that could affect the revenue conclusion.
Strategy
For this misc question, we need to identify the specific argumentative technique Raoul uses. Let's analyze his response structure: 1) He agrees with part of Sonya's reasoning (smoking won't decrease), 2) He introduces a new factor Sonya didn't consider (smuggling due to regional price differences), 3) This new factor potentially undermines her conclusion about increased revenue. This looks like he's pointing out an overlooked consequence or introducing a complicating factor.
This suggests Raoul is making a subtle distinction between 'no change' and 'no decrease' in consumption levels. However, Raoul actually agrees with Sonya that smoking is unlikely to decrease. He doesn't question her support for this part of the argument - he accepts it completely. His challenge comes from introducing smuggling as a new factor, not from distinguishing between different types of consumption changes.
This perfectly captures Raoul's strategy. Sonya concludes that government revenue will increase. Raoul calls this into question by pointing to smuggling as a possible effect of the tax increase. The 'certain change' is the tax hike that makes Copeland's prices no longer the lowest regionally, and the 'possible effect' is substantial illegal cigarette sales that could reduce the legal sales on which government revenue depends. Raoul doesn't directly contradict Sonya but introduces a complicating factor that undermines her conclusion.
Raoul doesn't suggest that Sonya needs to cite precedents to better support her argument. He doesn't critique her evidence or reasoning methodology. Instead, he accepts her reasoning but introduces a new consideration (smuggling) that she didn't account for. This choice mischaracterizes his response entirely.
This would mean Raoul is showing that other causes besides the tax increase could produce increased revenue. But that's not what's happening. Raoul isn't identifying alternative causes of revenue increase - he's identifying a potential consequence of the tax increase (smuggling) that could prevent the revenue increase from occurring at all.
This suggests Raoul thinks the tax increase isn't large enough to achieve its intended effect. However, Raoul actually accepts that the tax is significant enough to change Copeland's relative position (from lowest prices to not-lowest in the region). His concern isn't that the initiative is too modest, but that it creates an unintended consequence (smuggling opportunity) that Sonya didn't consider.